typhoonboy
Pukindog I feel you have completely misunderstood what dns was saying and taken offence far too easily. Everyone on here agrees that the pilots did a great job and flew the aircraft very well, that cannot be denied. However, dns agreed that declaring an emergency in that way worked even if not standard.
It was to FAA-standard. You're wrong if you think it wasn't.
The standard phraseology to get the emergency services to standby is one of two: "mayday, mayday, mayday" or "panpan, panpan, panpan".
In the U.S. you're wrong if you think there are only 2 ways. While you can indeed use either of those 2 ICAO-standard terms for (respectively) a distress or urgency condition, in the U.S. you can also use the FAA-standard "Emergency", a word used to convey either condition.
Using either of these phrases will get the controller to put airfield emergency services on standby and possibly get them to call local emergency services too.
Of course it will. So will using the standard "Emergency", believe it or not.
Also, if you picked up an FAA ATC Controller's handbook and read it you'll find out that a controller is directed to commence emergency response procedures
even when a "Mayday" or "Emergency" call isn't heard when there's doubt about an aircraft or if plain language conveys a distress or urgency condition.
I don't think there was a need for the rude reply as you weren't completely correct.
What part was incorrect?
Also I was under the illusion that ICAO was above the FAA and all ICAO states had to follow the ICAO rules at a minimum, including RT communications.
You are suffering under an illusion if you believe that supplementing the ICAO-standard phraseology somehow renders the ICAO-approved void, when the ICAO-standard is also recognized and responded to. It exceeds the ICAO minimum. Many ICAO-states have differences to ICAO-standard that must be complied with, yet this phraseology-issue isn't even a matter of forced, regulatory compliance within the U.S.
I'd also like to add that a distress call such as a mayday or pan let's everyone on frequency know there is radio silence so there is more than meets the eye for a reason behind standard communications.
So does using "Emergency" when heard in the U.S, and the pilot in question transmitted "Emergency". What's your point? "Standard phraseology is a good thing in general when applicable"? Nobody has disagreed with that in this thread. Along with the ICAO script, you should also learn that ICAO (as well as the FAA) recognize that plain language is also an important, essential, and approved part of communication. "Plain language" means it falls outside scripted "phraseology".
For example, this means that any pilot who hears another transmitting to ATC they have "smoke in the cockpit" in plain language but doesn't shut up to allow them a clear frequency simply because they didn't hear the declaration "Mayday/Emergency/Pan-pan" is and idiot.
In the real world of flying calls get missed, garbled, blocked, truncated, etc etc. all the time. The system of emergency response is designed to default to the conservative in the imperfect, real world because it recognizes that in emergency situations things often go awry. Defaulting to the conservative is part of a controller's responsibility as directed by their Handbooks, rules and procedures.
By now, there should be nobody reading this thread who, if they fly in the U.S., doesn't know that "Emergency" is standard, unambiguous phraseology when in the U.S. or what it means. The only difference to ICAO is that the FAA doesn't ask pilots to try and differentiate between distress or urgency conditions. If you want to go right ahead, the response you get will be the same. But it is not mandatory that you do so and it is not improper, sloppy, or non-standard in any way if you dont.